Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing partial-success semantics (failed wallets get error entries, successful ones return full profiles), per-wallet independent signing with distinct TRST-XXXXX IDs, and an explicit credit model (3 per successful wallet, 6 with proof 'merkle', charged only on success). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a non-idempotent, credit-consuming batch call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose/scope, speed rationale, signing model, partial-success behavior, and cost. The core batch scope is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a credit-metered, non-idempotent batch tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, batch size, per-wallet signing, and partial-failure behavior well. It does not describe what a 'trust fact profile' actually contains, a minor gap given there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'wallets' (1-10) and the 'proof' enum. The description restates the 'merkle' / 6-credit pairing already present in the schema, adding no real parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (wallet trust fact profiles) with a clear scope constraint (up to 10 wallets in a single request). The batch semantics are unmistakable, but it never names the sibling insumer_wallet_trust, so differentiation from the single-wallet tool is only implied by 'batch' and 'faster than sequential calls'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Shared block fetches make this faster than sequential calls' gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice (multiple wallets). There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for the single-wallet case, but the usage context is understandable without inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.